Transcription
[Music] O [Music] O O O Om Sahana Vavatu, Sahano Punaktu, Sah Viryam Karava Vahai, Tejasvina Vadhi Tamastu, Ma Vithvishavahai. Om Shanti Shanti [Music] Shanti.
We briefly looked at the commentary on the first sutra of Mimamsa Darshan in the third class of Mimamsa Darshan. Athato Dharma Jijnasa. Atha Atah Dharma Jijnasa. And in this too, we looked at some things regarding the word 'Atha'. In the Mimamsa Darshan Shabar Bhashya, the Purva Paksha (opponent's view) and Uttara Paksha (concluding view) keep appearing intermittently, and we have to keep in mind whether it is the sentence of the Purva Pakshi or the Uttara Pakshi. Just like the Mahabhashya. The language of Mahabhashya is also simple in this way. The style of Nyaya Darshan's Mahabhashya, the style of Vyakarana Mahabhashya, is somewhat similar. The level of language and that too changes somewhat according to the subject, but otherwise it is the same. So here too, there will be arguments for and against, reasoning, refutation and affirmation, as happens in Nyaya Darshan. But here the analysis of the sentence will be interspersed. Why will we do all this? To understand the meaning of the sentence correctly. Why is the meaning of the sentence this, why is the meaning of the sentence not this? It is starting. So, in Athato Dharma Jijnasa, what should be the meaning of the sutra, what is its purport? This is the analysis that Shabar Muni has started. So, we had seen some things regarding 'Atha', some more things will come later. If anyone from you has any questions from the previous lesson, you can ask. I was asking for clarification. In the first line, it is written 'Tadhani eva sat sutre iti avagantavya'. Avagantavya, not Avantya. It is not Arthani. Tadhani. Speak slowly, what do you want to say? Sutreshu tadhani eva. The same meaning. Sutreshu iti avanta. It should not be byana. You can consider this as a usage, in a general singular form. So such usages can be seen. You mean from the perspective of number, right? Tadhani eva sutreshu. Okay, it's done till here. Instead of saying 'Sutreshu avagantavya', if we see it like this, ending with 'iti'. What if the words that are famous in the world, they are possible, their meanings are in the sutras. Just finish it. Sutreshu iti. Sutreshu. Just Sutreshu iti. Okay, knowing this much, 'iti avagantavya', should be known. Okay, we will separate this. Either we will keep the number the same, as you are saying, 'tadartha avagantavya', those meanings should be known. Is that your statement? Looking at 'iti', we can separate it in the sentence construction. It will be done. Tadhani sat sambhava tadarthani eva sutreshu. Okay. Loke yeshu artheshu padani prasiddha santi. Okay. Sati sambhava tadhani tat arthani eva tadhani sutreshu tadhani eva. Just 'iti'. By saying 'iti', the completion of the sentence. 'iti'. We should understand it like this. Okay. So, instead of connecting 'avagantavya' with 'tadhani', connect it with 'Lokeshu Lokeshu yeshu padarthashu prasiddha padani'. Completing the sentence with that. And here 'avagantavya' is a general statement. Okay. And some, page number four, the last, the second to last line, 'Tasmin sati sa avakalpa'. Is this 'sa avakalpa'? 'Sa dharma jijnasa'. Ah, 'Tasmin sati'. Upon what being present? We will take this from Vedic study. Previous. Okay. So, what was conceived before? What was the vritta before? In response to this, what have they written? 'Tavedanam'. It's done till here. Yes. 'Tasmin hi sati'. Upon that being present. 'Tasmin tasmin vedane sati'. Upon that Vedic knowledge being present, 'sa', meaning 'dharma jijnasa', 'akalpa', 'sambhavati'. That is, it can be done properly. Keep one mic here. Speak. Kuldeep ji, Namaste, Muni ji. This introduction, page number nine. Namaste and thank you. One minute, one minute. Shastra Avatara Mimamsa. Ji. Okay, first, I will take yours too. Is there any question from the lesson from the day before yesterday, from any of you? No. Okay. In Shastra Avatara Mimamsa, you are speaking. Page number. Page number nine. Yes, please. In this, the third prose passage, the end of the second line of the third prose passage is 'Asesha shesha mukhi shesha shesha [Music] mushi sa'. Wait a minute. This is an adjective. Look, the tradition of Mimamsa Shastra is there. On page number nine. Oh brother, I am looking at page number nine in my book. Kuldeep ji, yes. Tell me the title first. Namaste and thank you. Yudhishthira Vimana Sak. That is his personal one. So, the first is the second. Yes, yes. After the introduction. Okay. Yes, yes. Namaste and thank you. Yes, in this, the third paragraph. Paragraph. 'Asesha shesha mushi'. In the second line, at the end. 'Samasta ko janane wale, samasta gyan ko jane wale, jo hote hain, unse sampanna hote hain'. They are. For this, it is said that this is an adjective for Maharshi Dayanand. So, I will look at this and tell you, but as far as I remember, it is the remover of ignorance, the remover of darkness. 'Shamshi' and 'Asesha Shamshi' means the one who completely removes darkness or ignorance. 'Mush' comes in the sense of stealing, but here it means removal. Removal of what? Ignorance or impurity. The intellect that removes it, or that person. And 'Asesha', the intellect that completely removes ignorance. One who is endowed with that. So, it is an adjective for the brilliant Maharshi Dayanand. Okay. Yes. I wanted to ask something related to the history of Mimamsa. Mimamsa was composed after the Mahabharata period, to analyze the Brahmana texts. Was there any form of Mimamsa before this, or if there was, what was it like? Yes, it is like this. The Shastra that is available to us now, its period has been mentioned. Yes. But this subject, it must have been going on before. Yes. This context, this subject, Mimamsa, must have been going on before. Just like for Yoga, you must have heard while studying Yoga Darshan, 'Yatha Yoga Anushasanam'. So, Yoga did not start with Yoga Darshan or Patanjali. No. Similarly, for Sankhya Shastra, Brahm Muni ji, when he explains their meanings, he brings up this point that this knowledge, or Yoga Vidya, or Sankhya Vidya, has been going on since Vedic times. But it was going on traditionally, and who knows what texts were created and destroyed, or the subject was taught traditionally without texts. It might not have been in this form, but in another form. But Maharshi Patanjali presented it in this form. Similarly, it is for Panini's grammar. There were grammarians before him too, who explained it from their own perspective. Panini also took help from that, and also used his own talent, added new things, whatever it was. But the fact that it has become a prevalent text does not mean that grammar did not exist before it. It existed before. It might have existed from the beginning of creation. Yes. But was it not prevalent in this form at that time? It was not in this form, but the knowledge would have existed. This knowledge has existed from the beginning. One perspective is that, as it comes in Nirukta, initially they understood directly from the Vedic mantra. When that didn't happen, some explanatory texts came, then more explanatory texts came. We need grammar a lot now, or we have needed it for a very long time, because we are not understanding the language, languages have changed, we don't have that knowledge. So, special help texts started being made for that. So, the sentence Shastra, which you are talking about, that is because it is prevalent from the Vedas. There are sentences in the Vedas too, so it will be used there. But in this Mimamsa Shastra, most of the sentences taken are from Brahmana texts. The composition of Brahmana texts is around the Mahabharata period, as Yudhishthira ji accepts. Whenever it was, it could be before or after. After that, taking those sentences, this analysis was done. So, the Bhashya and the original sutras are from after this. They were kept in special consideration, but the sentence Shastra has been going on since before. How should we grasp the meaning? So, were there only these six Vidya (branches of knowledge) of Darshanas, or were there more or less from the beginning? You can say there are many more Vidya. There are six Darshanas. Six Darshanas are prevalent. All things are included in these. All those who wanted to take them. But this does not mean that now, for example, take Arthashastra. It is a Vidya in itself. Ayurveda is a Vidya in itself. War Vidya is a Vidya in itself. They are separate, aren't they? They can be. But to understand the essence, to understand the truth, the perspective is that these six are mentioned. And in that too, we use various proofs. Okay. So, Nyaya Darshan tells about various proofs, and Mimamsa Darshan is focused on Shabda Pramana (word as proof). Mimamsa Darshan is focused on which proof? Shabda Pramana. The sentences that are taken, their analysis is to be done. So, where will the sentences come from? They will come from Shabda Pramana. They will come from Shruti. They will come from 'Ato Upadesha'. It is focused on that. It does not discuss inference, perception, and other proofs. If they come incidentally, that's a different matter. But here, what is directly found in the sentence Shastra is called direct perception. Direct perception means the direct words are found. One is the direct words. Then we infer a hidden meaning and call it inference. We go into Lakshana (metaphorical meaning), Lakshana, Vyanjana, etc., as in literature. We go into Lakshana, we take a hidden meaning, we call it inference. So, the direct perception and inference here are different. It is related to Shabda Pramana. Consider it direct perception. Why is it called direct perception? Because direct Shruti is found. Those words are directly found from that sentence. So, this is direct Shruti. And if it is not directly found, and we are extracting the purport from it, then it is indirect. That is inference. That is imagination. That is also accepted as an inference proof, but it should be appropriate. What is the direct meaning of the sentence? If we are taking an indirect meaning, then what should that meaning be? The entire sentence Shastra, that is, it is focused on Shabda Pramana, on 'Ato Upadesha'. This entire Shastra. Namaste Muni ji. In the introduction, Shastra Avatara Mimamsa. So, from here they have started again from page one. So, on page one, yes. They have explained under the title 'Upadeshak of the lower limbs' what they have written. Upadesha and Pravachana. So, Brahma ji's is Upadesha, and all those after him, they have called Pravachana. Pravachana, discipline, speaking and acting accordingly. So, that is also called Smriti. Okay. So, by all this, they want to establish that all this knowledge is from the beginning, from Brahma ji, or from the beginning. In all the ancient texts of our tradition, this tradition is considered to be from the beginning. In Charaka, Sushruta, wherever there are descriptions, they say where it started. They said this, they said that. Now, when we were reading the Upanishads, at the end of Brihadaranyaka, they mentioned a tradition. Whether they called it matriarchal or patriarchal, someone learned from someone, someone learned from him, like this, they describe the tradition. So, almost no one says, "I did this." Sometimes opinions come, like Maharshi Dayanand also says. He doesn't say, "I did all this." He says, "I am speaking in accordance with the Vedas and the Rishis." He connects himself and speaks. He doesn't say anything completely new. No one can do that much new. So, this tradition in our country, it has been going on since before. Okay. And anything else? Yes. So, this Pravachana, and Upadesha, was there only one, Brahma ji's? And all the subsequent ones are called Pravachana? Look, that is from a scholarly perspective. Generally, whatever is said now, even if it is something new, it will come under Pravachana. You can call it that. And the current ones can also be called Upadesha. This is not 'Adya Upadesha'. 'Ta'. The Maharshis have given verses for both Upadeshak and Adhyapak. So, the Upadeshak will do Upadesha. That will also be called Upadesha. We cannot say that Upadesha was only Brahma ji's. This is not your Upadesha. It is prevalent in the world. So, in the sense in which Upadesha is prevalent now, it is not in the sense of the first speaker, the first Upadesha. He is doing Upadesha. Okay. And similarly, both words, Pravachana and Upadesha, are prevalent today. So, in the first sentence of Mimamsa we saw, what did Shabar Muni say? 'Lokeshu yeshu artheshu prasiddha'. Not yet. In the sense in which it is prevalent now, and someone is speaking, we should take that meaning in the language of that time. If we look at the past, then we should see, in that time, in what sense was this word prevalent? That analysis can be done. But it has to be taken in the prevalent sense. Okay. Please speak. Yes. In the introduction, before all this, the last page of the introduction, page number eight. Here, the relationship of Anvaya and Vyatireka is considered with the mother. Yes, yes. So, how is it possible? They are expressing their feelings. They should be taken in that sense, brother. Anvaya Vyatireka is like this: if this is, then this is. If this is not, then this is not. Like that. Upon its presence, this is happening. And if it is not present, then it is not happening. Okay. Anvaya means in accordance with it. Vyatireka means looking at it by removing it. This is a style. The meaning of Anvaya Vyatireka is known where inevitability is stated. If there are clouds, then there will be rain. If there are no clouds, there will be no rain. So, we can take the cause-effect relationship in other words as Anvaya Vyatireka. It is a style of understanding. Modern science also uses it, and philosophy also uses it. Wherever there is reasoning and logic, cause-effect relationships, reasons, etc., are involved. So, there is Anvaya Vyatireka. So, their meaning is that all this appears. It all appears. They are just expressing their feelings. Since they are scholarly analysts, they have used it in that way. So, it used to happen. Mother, their Devi ji, all these things used to happen. If she was not there, or if she was ill, then these would stop. So, that which causes something to happen when it is present, and does not cause it to happen when it is absent. That is considered its cause. So, in that sense, they say. What is the purport of all this? They are stating their importance. They are stating their cooperation. The cooperation of the mother. Without them, it is not possible. In a way, they are expressing gratitude. They are expressing respect and gratitude towards them. In the last 20 years, it is not a matter of one or two years of Vedic literature. For that, all this is. Okay. And shall we proceed? Yes. So, the Mimamsa of the sentence has started. You feel it. And what is our first sentence? What is being analyzed? Athato Dharma Jijnasa. This sentence, in a way, is a sentence. Even though it is in sutra style, its analysis is going on. So, what is the meaning of the word 'Atha'? They have taken 'An'. And when is 'An'? After doing something. What is that something? Lok Prasiddha Veda Adhyayana (well-known Vedic study). They have taken Vedic study in this context. It's done till here. And what did the Purva Pakshi say about this? Now they are refuting it. So, what will be the meaning of the Siddhanti (concluding view)? For now, they are just taking the meaning of 'Atha'. What will be its specific meaning later, we will see later. But what will be the primary meaning? After Vedic study, Dharma Jijnasa should be done. We are taking this as the general meaning. A question has arisen on this. Close that window without the net. Take it out. Now, what is the meaning of this? After Vedic study, Dharma Jijnasa should be done. Now, how did the Purva Pakshi refute this? They said, "This statement of yours is not correct. That is, your statement is not correct. That after other actions too, Dharma Jijnasa is appropriate. It is seen. It is possible. It is appropriate." So, the meaning of Vedic study that you have taken here, 'Atha' means 'after', and taking it as 'after Vedic study' is not correct. Vedic study is an action. So, they said, "Dharma Jijnasa can also happen after other actions." Therefore, this does not form a rule. What you are saying is not correct. They refuted it from one perspective. From another perspective, what did they do? Dharma Jijnasa can happen even before Vedic study. You said after Vedic study. Okay. So, first, 'An' Dharma Jijnasa will happen. After what will 'An' happen? The question has been raised on that. Dharma Jijnasa can happen after other actions too. The first question is here. Objection here. Now, the second objection is focused on the word 'Atha'. Dharma Jijnasa happens after Vedic study. Can Dharma Jijnasa not happen even before 'Atha'? Okay. Two objections have been raised. The first objection is on Vedic study. The second objection is on 'Atha'. Okay. So, what is the sentence? 'Anyasya karmana anam dharma jijnasa yuktā eva'. This is the objection. And 'Kā prāg api cha vedādhyayanāt'. Even before Vedic study. So, in response to this, what did the Siddhanta say? 'Uchyate'. It is said. "Here, 'Atha' word is used by the Acharya for the purpose of indicating the sequence of that Dharma Jijnasa." Now, what is the intention of the speaker here? This is the main thing. What is the intention of the speaker? The Acharya, the sutra, is Jaimini Muni. So, what is his purport? It is also mentioned in Nyaya Darshan that if we grasp a different meaning of a word than the speaker's intention, what is that called? It is called 'Chhala' (deception), isn't it? To grasp a meaning different from what the speaker said and then refute it. So, its purport is. I am not saying it is an act of deception here. Refutation. That what the speaker said, we have to take that meaning. We should not take our own meaning. That I can interpret it this much, I can interpret it this way. So, in Agamas, that is, in word Shastra, and mainly in the Vedas, what should be our purpose? What do they want to say? And this is accuracy. This is a matter of dedication. What do they want to say? Because we will extract that meaning and tell others, so what will we say? It is written in this book. We will present evidence to say our point. So, will we present evidence that it is actually said by the speaker or not? This is a special thing to see. And in this sentence analysis, what should be the meaning from the speaker's perspective? It is focused on that. If we do it from our own perspective, there can be flaws. And if we want to say something from our own perspective, then we should say separately, "I want to say this." Who forbids anyone from speaking? My intention is this.
This is my thought, this is my argument. You may state it in your own way, but if we are speaking in the name of the Vedas, if we are quoting according to the Rishis' texts or sutras, then we must see whether what I am saying is said there or not, or whether I am saying the same thing that was said here, or whether I am changing its meaning. This is where the matter of correctness lies. The analysis of the sentence will also be seen here as to what the speaker intended to convey there. This is because the word "atha" used by the Acharya to indicate the beginning of the inquiry into Dharma is different from the inquiry into Dharma here. The inquiry into Dharma here was stated for that which arises only after the study of the Vedas. Now, other actions have been removed. The answer to the previous point has also come: can it happen after other actions? No, it cannot. This Dharma inquiry will happen only after the study of the Vedas. Second, can Dharma inquiry happen even before the study of the Vedas? So, the prohibition of "anantara" will also be answered in a way. No, it must happen "anantara" (after). Therefore, to undertake that inquiry, the word "atha" is used by the Acharya. It is not possible without the study of the Vedas. How? Because the consideration of the various meanings of Vedic sentences will be done here. Different sentences will come from different perspectives. So, from the perspective of Ishvara Muni, what has become clear is that this scripture is a science of sentences. This is the proof, this is the science of sentences, this is the purpose, and this will continue throughout the scripture. Although we will arrive at many decisions, there will be adhikaranas, some principles will emerge, and that knowledge will be gained, that is a separate matter. The main purpose is not to extract conclusions, but to extract conclusions correctly, but it must be done while analyzing the sentence. Mostly, the main purpose here is the analysis of the sentence. So far, now let's look at the next part. We are looking at page number five, the book of Yudhishthira, page five, and the second paragraph is the statement of the Siddhantin. And here too, we will understand the analysis of the sentence and some fundamental points related to the sentence. So, he is saying, "Api cha" (and also), he is saying additional things. The first answer given in the first paragraph is, in a way, an answer, and the refutation of the Purvapakshin has also been done. Now, its analysis is being done further. He is stating his own position, what he wants to say and why he wants to say it, and what the flaw will be if this meaning is not taken, and what the flaw will be if you take that meaning. This is, in a way, an additional discussion, an analysis. So, it is said, "Api cha" (and also), "Nava vayam hah" (we are not here). In this context, "Veda adhyayan purvam" (before the study of the Vedas), "Dharma jijñāsāyāḥ pratiṣedhaśim" (prohibition of Dharma inquiry). This sutra, "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā," in its context, although "vayam" (we) can be said for Ishvara Muni himself, it is also from the perspective of the sutra. That the meaning we are taking here is not prohibiting Dharma inquiry before the study of the Vedas. This is focused on the second question of the Purvapakshin. At the end of the first line, you have written numbers one and two. This was "anyasyāpi karmaṇo'nantaram dharma jijñāsā yuktā" (Dharma inquiry is appropriate after other actions too). Put a number on this, and "prāg api ca vedādhyayanāt" (and even before the study of the Vedas). Put number two on this. So, the answers that will come later are the answers to the first and the second. So, the second one, "prāg api ca vedādhyayanāt" (even before the study of the Vedas, Dharma inquiry is appropriate), which the Purvapakshin said. So, the Siddhanta is saying that we are not prohibiting Dharma inquiry before the study of the Vedas here. You have shown the refutation by assuming that "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā" means Dharma inquiry happens after the study of the Vedas. What meaning did you take in the Lakshana and what implication did you take, that Dharma inquiry does not happen before the study of the Vedas? When we take any sentence, we take many implications from it, don't we? So, in the sutra, what was said? Dharma inquiry happens after the study of the Vedas. If we take the literal meaning of the sutra, looking at that sentence, what did it say? Can Dharma inquiry not happen even before the study of the Vedas? So, the answer is that we are not prohibiting Dharma inquiry before the study of the Vedas in this sentence. The refutation that the Purvapakshin did was based on taking this implication from the sentence: Dharma inquiry happens after the study of the Vedas, meaning Dharma inquiry cannot happen before the study of the Vedas. The Purvapakshin took this meaning and refuted it by saying, "Can it not happen before too?" So, they are saying, we are not prohibiting that at all. Why are you refuting that? Meaning, indirectly, they have accepted that Dharma inquiry can happen even before the study of the Vedas, or the broader Dharma inquiry that the Purvapakshin is mentioning can happen even before. We are not prohibiting that. It is not being prohibited by this sentence. From this sentence, now we are analyzing what is the meaning of the sutra "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā," which meaning is it, and is it not saying this? Many meanings will emerge from this sutra. So, which meaning does this sutra want to convey, and which meaning does it not want to convey, is here. So, it is said that we are not prohibiting Dharma inquiry before the study of the Vedas from this. It is not being prohibited by this sutra. We are clarifying, even though the meaning seems to emerge. We also feel that it seems like that. They say, no, this meaning will not emerge from it. According to our understanding so far, why will this meaning not emerge? It can emerge, can't it? No, it cannot emerge. What meaning did the Purvapakshin take: Dharma inquiry can happen even before the study of the Vedas. So, you are prohibiting in this. So, the meaning that is emerging as a prohibition, we also take it, don't we? We take it like this. This means that Dharma inquiry cannot happen before the study of the Vedas. We take this meaning. The Purvapakshin also took it with the same intellect. The Siddhanta says this meaning is not here at all in this sutra. Why is it not? This analysis will continue here. Attention should be paid to this point. One is that this is the answer to the second objection of the Purvapakshin. Now, the answer to the first objection is being given. "Prastā anyam" (and after another). And after "anyakarma" (other action). "Prastā" means after. After what? After other actions. Because his first question was "anyasyāpi karmaṇo'nantaram" (even after other actions). So, "prastā'nantaram" and after other actions. And its "anantara" (sequence): can it happen only after this? So, they say, we are not denying that either. "Prastā anyam" - so, not at all, not at all prohibiting. "Naiva naiva pratiṣedhaśim." The first sentence, "Naiva vayam." We will take "naiva" here as well, and "pratiṣedhaśim" (prohibition) here as well. So, "Naiva prastā'nantarim" or "ānantaryāt pratiṣedhaśim." We are not prohibiting that. We are not prohibiting that either, that Dharma inquiry cannot happen after other actions. "Veda adhyayanāt dharma jijñāsā" (Dharma inquiry after the study of the Vedas). So, the meaning is that Dharma inquiry happens only after the study of the Vedas. "Anyakarmaṇo'nantaram dharma jijñāsā na bhavati" (Dharma inquiry does not happen after other actions). This second meaning, what was said? Dharma inquiry happens after the study of the Vedas. If we take the implication, Dharma inquiry does not happen after other actions. This prohibition that is being taken as an implication, they say, we are not saying that either. We are not saying this. This is also emerging. Our intellect also says this. Generally, after studying the Vedas, one should inquire about Dharma. This means one should not inquire about Dharma after other actions. This implication can be taken by anyone, can't it? So, they say, we are not saying that either. We are not saying these two things. We are not saying either of these two things. One of them might be possible, at most. So, further, it is said, "Hi ekam vākyam." This one sentence, "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā." So, "hi tad ekavākyam." This one sentence, "prāg vedādhyayanāt" (before the study of the Vedas), "dharma jijñāsāyāḥ pratiṣedhaśim" (prohibition of Dharma inquiry). It will also prohibit Dharma inquiry before the study of the Vedas, and "prāg anyam prakṛti" (and after it, the sequence). And after it, "ānantaram" (immediately after). It will also indicate the "ānantaram" (sequence). These two things cannot happen. One is prohibition, "Veda adhyayanāt pūrvaṁ dharma jijñāsā na bhavitavyam" (Dharma inquiry should not happen before the study of the Vedas). This has also been inferred. And "Veda adhyayanāt param dharma jijñāsā bhavati" (Dharma inquiry happens after the study of the Vedas). This is also a command. Two sentences have emerged, two meanings have emerged. They say, two meanings cannot emerge from one sentence. Only one meaning will emerge from one sentence. They want to establish this. We will understand this further. It seems strange to you now. You will think that both meanings can emerge. They say, two meanings cannot emerge. That is, the speaker does not want to say two things. The speaker wants to say only one of them. So, what happens in two? So, it is said, "Prastā ca na." If it is done like this, then "vidhyt hi tad vākyam." If it is done like this, then it will be a sentence division. It will be a sentence division. It will mean two sentences have to be assumed. But it is only one sentence. Only one meaning emerges from one sentence. Two meanings cannot emerge. This is a very big principle of Mimamsa. Only one meaning should be taken from one sentence, not two. Now, do not take its absolute literal meaning that what we derive from the adhikaraṇa and the Siddhanta, what we infer, is completely prohibited. That is not the case. The speaker's intention cannot be two. If it becomes two, then there will be a division of the sentence. Division of the sentence means that instead of one, two sentences have to be assumed, whereas it is only one sentence. So, sentence division is considered a flaw. If we derive meaning by dividing a sentence, even if we derive two or three meanings, it is considered a flaw. There is one sentence, so it should be considered as one sentence, and only the meaning that emerges from it should be accepted. If there is division, then "bhidhyat hi tad vākyam." Then it will lead to sentence division. This is a statement of a flaw. There should not be division. Further, "anyā hi vacana vyaktir asya." Let's see why sentence division is happening. Why are there two sentences? They are explaining how sentence division is happening. So, it is said, "anyā hi vacana vyaktir." Look at the word "vacana vyakti." "Vacana" means sentence, and "vyakti" means its expression, its meaning. So, "vacana vyakti" means the meaning of the sentence. That is different, and that is different. They are explaining it like this. When two different sentence expressions are happening, when two different meanings are perceived from one sentence, then the sentence is also different. Because they have a big principle: "artha-kṛtvā ekam vākyam." (Meaningfulness makes one sentence). The definition of a sentence will come later, under the second chapter, a sutra is also given in the commentary. We will understand this in more detail in the second commentary at 2.1.46, but this is the principle. What is one sentence? "Artha-kṛtvā ekam vākyam." From one meaning, the indication of one sentence is known. If there is division, then it becomes a sentence. It will require some other expectation, some other words are needed. So, a sentence is "nirākāramkāśa" (without any unmet expectations). The word "ākāṅkṣā" (expectation) will be repeated many times. We understand "ākāṅkṣā" as desire. So, in a sentence, if some words are written, and if they are expecting some other words, meaning the meaning is not complete, some other words are needed, then it means this sentence has "ākāṅkṣā" and it should come, it should come. Otherwise, if some words are added, it will not be clear. If we just say "Rama," what will we understand from it? "Rama." Our expectation is not fulfilled. If we say "Rama," "Rama gacchati, tiṣṭhati, upaviśate" (Rama goes, stands, sits). What is it? The expectation remains. So, this sentence is not complete. The sentence should be complete. So, if there is division in a sentence, then it is "sākānta" (having unmet expectations). That "vacana vyakti" is different. Which one? From this sentence, "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā." What does it say? "Prāg vedādhyayanāt" (before the study of the Vedas), "dharma jijñāsāyāḥ pratiṣedhaśi" (prohibition of Dharma inquiry). It prohibits Dharma inquiry. That Dharma inquiry should not be done before the study of the Vedas. This is one "vacana vyakti" (sentence expression), one meaning of the sentence. Further, it is said, "anyā ca prastā'nantaram upadeśaḥ." And another "vacana vyakti" is "prāg anyam" (after it). "Upadeśaḥ" (instruction). It indicates the "ānantaram" (sequence) of Dharma inquiry. So, there are two "vacana vyakti" (sentence expressions), two meanings have emerged. Therefore, it indicates that this is a sentence division. And we should not do sentence division. Whether it is a Vedic mantra or a sutra, we should not derive meaning by dividing the sentence. This is a big principle. Otherwise, there will be a flaw. And if we do it by dividing the sentence, then we will start doing anything. Now, let's understand the perspective of the Purvapakshin and the Siddhantin a little. From what perspective is the Purvapakshin looking at the sentence, and from what perspective is the Siddhantin looking at it? To you both, it might seem to be the same perspective. The prohibition is being objected to. He is saying that, but the underlying sentiment is a little different, which will be explained now. One is that here, any sentence is analyzed. Just as in grammar, a word is analyzed, its separation is done. Isn't the meaning of the word "vyākaraṇa" also this? "Pṛthak pṛthak vyākyayate, pṛthak kriyate anena" (It is analyzed separately, it is done separately). That is, it is seen by breaking it down. Understand it like this: if there is a body, and we want to understand the body, what do we do? We perform dissection. We break it into pieces and see. Or if there is a machine, say a clock or something, and someone wants to understand it, what do they do? They open the parts and see. Oh, this is like this, this is joined here, this is joined there. What do they do? They break it apart and see it to understand it. So, just as it is seen in grammar for a word, here in Mimamsa, the sentence is seen by breaking it down. How is it broken down? We will understand that now. There will be many points on the sentence. How is a sentence broken down? So, let me tell you a little more principle before that, related to this context. Just as "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā." To understand what has been discussed so far, I will say a sentence to you: "After food, one should wash their hands." What is the sentence? "After food, one should wash their hands." So, "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā" in the style of "Athato Hastaprakṣālana." So, "atha" (after) after what? After food. Now, if someone refutes this sentence, they will say: "After food, one should wash their hands." No, one can also wash their hands after other actions. It can happen, can't it? So, this sentence is wrong: "After food, one should wash their hands" is wrong, isn't it? So, the speaker will say: "I am not saying that one should not wash their hands after other actions." That's what they will say, won't they? We can also wash our hands after other actions. You can wash after defecation. You can wash after other purification activities. You can wash your hands, can't you? So, if someone says, "After food, one should wash their hands," does it mean it is prohibiting other actions? Does the sentence prohibit it? No. We understand it well in worldly dealings. Similarly, look at this: "Athato Dharma Jijñāsā." They said, "Now, after this, Dharma inquiry should be done." So, the Purvapakshin said: After the study of the Vedas, it can also happen after other actions. Brother, it can happen. Where are we denying it? You are washing your hands after actions other than food. This is not the meaning of the sentence. But someone can say: No, you have said that one should wash their hands only after food. This means that one should not wash their hands after other actions. Is this meaning coming from this sentence? So, they will say: Well, if this is coming, then one meaning is of prohibition. From this sentence, "After food, one should wash their hands." What is its one "vacana vyakti"? It is not to wash hands after other actions. It is not to wash hands after other actions. Because washing hands is linked to after food. So, one should not wash hands after other actions. If someone extracts this meaning from this sentence, someone can extract it. Then this is one "vacana vyakti." And the second "vacana vyakti" is: "After food, one should wash their hands." So, there are two "vacana vyakti," two meanings have emerged from the same sentence. So, they said, if you do this, then it will be a sentence division. The sentence is only one, and the meaning of that sentence will be only one. Okay, have you understood this completely here? That if someone refutes the sentence "After food, one should wash their hands" by saying: Brother, hands are also washed after other actions, and hands are also washed without eating food. So, this prohibition. Then they say: No, we are not prohibiting this at all. Similarly, they said: If Dharma inquiry happens after other actions, then we are not prohibiting it. Okay. Now, look at this from a slightly different perspective. If we change the background of a sentence, why is the speaker saying this sentence in the speaker's mind? In what situation? To derive the meaning of a sentence, we take up the subject of the context. What was the context going on, and in that context, this sentence was spoken? So, the meaning is different, isn't it? According to the context, we all understand this. Generally, what is the context? What is the occasion? We understand this much while studying grammar and literature. Now, see two perspectives here. If I put the question: When should Dharma inquiry be done? "Dharma jijñāsā kadā kartavyā?" (When should Dharma inquiry be done?) This is one question. "Dharma jijñāsā kathā kartavyā?" (How should Dharma inquiry be done?) And then it comes: "Veda adhyayanāntaram dharma jijñāsā kartavyā." (Dharma inquiry should be done after the study of the Vedas.) Okay, this comes. Or: "Vedaṁ adhighya kim kuryāt?" (What should be done after studying the Vedas?) "Vedaṁ adhighya kim kuryāt?" (What should be done after studying the Vedas?)
Yes, what was said? The second sentence, what should be done after studying the Vedas? What was the first question? When should religious inquiry be made? So, what will be the answer then? Religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. The second question is, what should be done after studying the Vedas? So, what sentence will come then? After studying the Vedas, don't say half, say the full sentence. After studying the Vedas, religious inquiry should be made. Can the same sentence be said in response to both questions? After studying the Vedas, religious inquiry should be made. This one sentence can be spoken differently in the background of two questions. When should religious inquiry be made? Then it will be said, religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. If the second question comes, what should be done after studying the Vedas? Religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. The same sentence came in response to both questions, didn't it? No, it didn't. Look, I am saying the same sentence. Okay, I will say it again. If I got confused in between or said it incorrectly, then religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. We will write this same answer in response to both questions. This sentence is not to be changed. One asked, when should religious inquiry be made? So, what answer will you give? Religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. Done. The second question is, what should be done after studying the Vedas? Religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. No, no, look at the half. In the first, the question is 'kada' (when), in the second, the question is 'kim' (what). No, the religious inquiry is 'kada' (when). The question is 'kada'. The second said, 'vedadhana anantaram kim kartavyam' (after studying the Vedas, what should be done?). Now, the question is not 'kim' (what), the question is 'kim kartavyam' (what should be done). Both questions are different. So, 'vedadhana anantaram dharmam jijñāsa kartavyam' (after studying the Vedas, religious inquiry should be done) will be the answer in both. There will be only one answer. So, this sutra, 'athāto dharma jijñāsa' (now, therefore, religious inquiry), this one sentence that came, in what form is the 'purvapakshi' (objector) refuting it? It is stating that religious inquiry should be made after studying the Vedas. It has tied religious inquiry to Vedic study, meaning it should not be done after other actions, not after other actions, and only after that. It should not be done before. That's why it tied it. And what is the 'siddhanta' (conclusion) saying? What should be done after studying the Vedas? After studying the Vedas, religious inquiry should be done. Now, what will happen? Among the things obtained after studying the Vedas, religious inquiry should be done. Now, this does not mean that religious inquiry cannot be done after other actions. Understand "What should be done after studying the Vedas?" as "What should be done after eating?" After eating, what should be done? One should wash hands. This is the 'siddhanta's' perspective. 'Bhojanantaram kim kartavyam' (What should be done after eating?). The 'purvapakshi' is looking at it as "When should hands be washed?" So, after eating, hands should be washed. If this question is in his mind, or if he is looking at it from that perspective, and they have said, "After eating, hands should be washed," then he will say, "Hands can also be washed after other actions. Why only after eating?" You can say anything else. So, the background of both is different. If we look at one sentence from the same perspective, we cannot refute it. The 'purvapakshi' is able to refute it by looking at it from the 'kada' (when) perspective, from the perspective from which the 'siddhanta' presented the matter. The refutation sentence, which was refuted in two ways, was refuted keeping 'kada' in mind. And the 'siddhanta' is answering, what should be done after considering what? So, this is the perspective. Now, look, the sentence was the same. We have analyzed it. We have divided it. In what background is this sentence being written or spoken? According to the speaker's intention, its meaning will be formed. The meaning of this same sentence. Done. So, the 'purvapakshi' is arguing from the perspective of "When should religious inquiry be made?" The 'siddhanta' is answering, "After studying the Vedas, what should be done?" Now, if you look at these sentences again, you will think, "Ah, this is how it is being answered." It is not written, but in the background in which it is being spoken, otherwise, the question itself would not arise. So, look, the 'siddhanta' said that if you take both meanings, there will be a difference in sentences, and a difference in sentences is a flaw. Now, look further. They are giving other examples in practice. They will give examples. Our example is 'athāto dharma jijñāsa' (now, therefore, religious inquiry), and the Vedic study related to it. So, what information related to it do we find in the scriptures? That is being told. So, they have written "Vedanta" in bold letters. Now, this is written so briefly. Now, look below it, a number is written. A comment is made below. 'Veda aditya' (having studied the Vedas), 'Veda vāyu' (Veda wind), 'Manusmriti 3.2'. 'Veda aditya, Veda vāyu, Vedam vāpi yathā kramam avita brahmacharyam, grihasthāshramam āvish'. So, 'Vedanta aditya'. This one verse has been taken. So, 'Vedanta aditya'. And along with this, the next sentence is, look at the next page of the sutra, page 6, look at its comment. 'Vedam aditya naśan' or 'Vedam aditya snāyāt' (Having studied the Vedas, one should bathe). So, in that context, look at this. So, 'Vedam, Vedantam iti ekasyām' (Having studied the Vedas, having studied the Vedas, in one). In this one verse, 'vachana vyakti' (expression of the word), if we take this meaning, 'vidyate anutya anyam' (it is stated, not stated, something else). It is being stated that something else is being stated after not stating. Let's try to understand. After reading the Vedas, 'Vedam aditya' (having studied the Vedas), 'Vedam aditya' (having studied the Vedas), one should bathe, 'samāvartana' (return). Keep the completion of that sentence in mind. But for now, just look at this. 'Vedanam' (of the Vedas), is its 'vidhi' (injunction) being done? Or 'Vedanta aditya' (having studied the Vedanta), the part that is implied, is its 'vidhi' (injunction) being done? Is the 'vidhi' (injunction) of the Vedas being done? Or is the 'vidhi' (injunction) of 'anyam' (something else) being done? Is the Veda being said, or is 'anyam' (something else) being said? 'Anyam' (something else) is not being said for the Veda. The Veda is already known. Vedic study is already known. Then this sentence is there. So, the things that are already known are mentioned in the sentence. This is called 'anuvāda' (repetition). 'Anuvāda' means the statement of what was said. That is, we already know. And the second is 'anyam' (something else), the statement being made. And 'snāyāt' (bathe), 'samāvartana' (return), get married. There is also an injunction for that. 'Vedam aditya snāyāt'. So, in this sentence, what is being enjoined? We will generally say it is a 'vidhi vākya' (injunctive sentence). It is not a prohibition. We consider it either an injunctive sentence or a prohibitive sentence. But in this injunctive sentence, is the injunction actually of the Veda? Is it of bathing? Or is it of 'anyam' (something else)? What is being enjoined? One is, study the Veda. Another is, get married. This is an injunction. One is, after studying the Veda, get married. So, in this sentence, is the Veda being enjoined? Is bathing being enjoined? Or is 'anyam' (something else) being enjoined? Is the injunction of 'anantara' (afterwards) being done? Sometimes it will also happen that if something is not there before, then the entire thing is also enjoined. But if something was said before, and then it is said here, then what will be its meaning? What was said before will be called 'anuvāda' (repetition). What is 'anuvāda' is not 'vidheya' (that which is to be enjoined). It is not 'vidheya'. It is in the same sentence, in the same injunctive sentence, one part is 'anuvāda' and one part is 'vidhi'. So, that is what they are saying. 'Iti ekasyām vachana vyakti vidyate anutya anyam' (Thus, in one expression of the word, it is stated, not stated, something else). After repetition, something else is enjoined. So, when we also look at the injunctive sentence, from the perspective of Mimamsa, when we start analyzing, what is being enjoined here? What is the part of the injunction? And which part is 'anuvāda'? Here, it is also called 'uddeshya' and 'vidheya'. What is called 'anuvāda' is called 'uddeshya'. 'Uddeshya' does not mean goal. It means what is already known. It is a restatement of what is already known. You can say it by the word 'anuvāda' or 'uddeshya'. And what is being said new is called 'vidheya'. It can be in the form of prohibition or positive. What is new is called 'vidheya'. 'Vidhi' (injunction). So, in the sentence 'Vedanta', the injunction of 'anyam' (something else) is done. 'Viparita anya syām' (Conversely, in something else). And if the expression of the word is different, then the opposite of 'anyam' (something else), which is the previous 'anyam' (something else), will be said to have a different meaning. Now, if we say, 'Vedanta snāyāt', and say that one should not bathe before studying the Vedas, then this meaning is not being taken. Prohibition is not being done. What should be done after studying the Vedas? One should bathe. So, if we take two, then the meaning will be 'arthakavachaya' (choice of meaning). If the meaning is one, then 'ekavākyatā' (unity of sentence) will be said later. Where will it be said? So, there, look, two symbols are placed, there are two numbers in the comment below. We will look at two like this everywhere. Based on the number. And this is a Mimamsa sutra. They say this will be confirmed later, that this is one principle, and according to it, there should not be two meanings. Look further. So, they say, 'Yadān aditya' (When studied). After this, 'kintu adhī ved dvayam' (but having studied two Vedas). You have studied two things after studying the Vedas. Two things have become 'kartavya' (duty). 'Āp' (obtained) means the previous statement is removed. It should not be done before. This should be done. What two things are obtained after studying the Vedas? 'Guru kulā samavartitam' (returning from Gurukul) and 'Veda vākyam cha vichāra tanyāni' (and the sentences of the Veda should be considered). Two things are obtained. So, when it is said, 'athāto dharma jijñāsa' (now, therefore, religious inquiry), then religious inquiry should be done after studying the Vedas. So, this statement of religious inquiry is removing what? It is removing 'samāvartana' (return). Two were obtained. One of the two is stated, so the other is prohibited. 'Siddha sati ārambha niyamā artha' (If something is already established, then its beginning is regulated by rules). If something is established, and even then it is stated, then it is for regulation. It is not for enjoining, because it was already obtained. Even then, if something obtained is stated, its main purpose is prohibition. This definition we take from grammar, it is also for understanding the meaning of sentences. It is not the main subject of grammar, but we are understanding the sutras there. That this thing was already obtained, so why did Panini say this? He said it directly, so it must have some meaning. It cannot be meaningless. This Mimamsa also believes that nothing is meaningless. So, this Mimamsa also does not consider it meaningless. So, here, it has some meaning. Its main purpose is what new thing is being said? If the obtained thing is said, then it is just repetition. Then what is happening? So, 'niyama sūtrāṇām niṣedha' (prohibition of regulatory sutras). It is an injunction in the form of prohibition. So, what are they saying? When both things are obtained, 'gurukula samāvartitam' (returning from Gurukul) and 'Veda vākyam vichāra tanyāni' (sentences of the Veda should be considered). So, there, 'gurukula mā samāvartīta' (do not return from Gurukul). This is the implication. 'Vedāditya snāyāt' does not mean that after studying the Vedas, one should bathe. That was already obtained. It means, after studying the Vedas, do not bathe. So, what should be done? Religious inquiry should be done. 'Veda vākyam na vichāra tanyāni' (Sentences of the Veda should not be considered). 'Gurukula mā samāvartīta' (Do not return from Gurukul). The implication of this sentence, this sentence 'Vedam aditya snāyāt', is not to bathe. Its implication is in prohibition. 'Vedan ditya stha' means, not 'Vedan ditya guru kulān mā samāvartīta' (not having studied the Vedas, do not return from Gurukul). What is the implication of 'athāto dharma jijñāsa'? That after studying the Vedas, do not return from Gurukul. So, why is this said? If you return from Gurukul, how will you consider the sentences of the Vedas? 'Katham Veda vākyam vichāre' (How will the sentences of the Vedas be considered?). This is the instruction for that. This is which sutra's? 'Athāto dharma jijñāsa'. 'Vedan ditya snāyāt' is separate. And 'athāto dharma jijñāsa' is different. That was obtained. Its prohibition is done from here. The discussion will continue further about whose sentence is considered valid and whose is not. This is a refutation. So, this discussion will continue further. Today's lesson is this much. Prana. [Music] Om Om [Music] [Music] Om Shanti Shanti [Music] Shanti. Sarve Namah. Greetings to all.